THE ruling Zanu PF has made it increasingly clear that it will stop at very little in its push to amend the Constitution and potentially extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s stay in power by an additional two years.
Already, the warning signs are appearing.
Reports of abductions and beatings involving critics of the proposed constitutional changes have begun surfacing, following a familiar and troubling pattern in Zimbabwe’s political life.
When debate over national issues starts to attract intimidation and violence, it signals that the country is drifting away from democratic engagement and towards coercion.
What we are witnessing is not democracy at play.
Democracy thrives on persuasion, debate and the free exchange of ideas.
Keep Reading
- Zim headed for a political dead heat in 2023
- Commodity price boom buoys GB
- New perspectives: Building capacity of agricultural players in Zim
- Fired judge given 2 weeks to return govt property
What is unfolding, instead, resembles a system willing to alter the rules, twist the laws and batter dissenters into submission in order to secure a predetermined political outcome.
Zimbabwe’s laws, however, are not silent on how constitutional change should occur.
The Constitution lays down a clear process.
Any fundamental alteration to the supreme law, especially one that affects the structure of political power, should be subjected to the will of the people.
In simple terms: take the question to a referendum. Let the citizens vote “Yes” or “No”.
That is how constitutional legitimacy is built.
Yet Zimbabwe’s recent political history raises legitimate doubts about whether those in power are willing to subject their ambitions to such a test.
After all, the current administration traces its origins to the events of the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d’état, when the military intervened and forced the resignation of long-time ruler Robert Mugabe.
For a leadership born out of that extraordinary political moment, bending legal and institutional boundaries has often appeared less daunting than respecting them.
But this time, there is a constitutional barrier standing directly in the path of those pushing for the so-called 2030 agenda.
That barrier is Section 328(7).
The provision is unambiguous: an amendment to the Constitution that alters the terms of an office holder cannot benefit the person currently occupying that office.
In other words, those who change the rules cannot personally profit from those changes.
This is the safeguard designed precisely to prevent incumbents from manipulating constitutional provisions to extend their political lives.
And that is why Section 328(7) has become the sticking point in the current debate.
No amount of political mobilisation can erase that clause.
No parliamentary majority can wish it away.
It exists to protect the integrity of constitutional governance and to ensure that the rules of the political game remain fair.
The responsibility to respect that safeguard ultimately falls on those who wield power.
Mnangagwa has repeatedly described himself as a constitutionalist — a leader committed to upholding the supreme law of the land.
That declaration now faces its most serious test.
Words spoken at rallies and conferences must now be matched by action.
If he cannot restrain members of his party who are determined to force through amendments that appear designed to benefit him, then he should make his position unmistakably clear: that he will not remain in office beyond the constitutional limit.
Zimbabwe is roughly two years away from the next general election, expected in 2028.
That is ample time for Mnangagwa to demonstrate that his commitment to constitutionalism is genuine.
He can use that time to repeatedly and unequivocally affirm that when his term ends, he will step aside.
Such clarity would calm a nation increasingly anxious about the direction of its politics.
The Constitution must not become a political plaything.
It is the foundation of the Republic.
Section 328(7) is not a technical footnote, but a guardrail against the abuse of power.
In the current climate, it may well represent the nation’s last line of defence against the madness of 2030.